• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Reality Check said:
The direct observation of dark matter falsifies the last prediction and thus the model.
Click to expand...
That is not evidence of Dark Matter. That is taking an observation and incorporating the idea of Dark Matter into the observation as an explaination.
Click to expand...
Um, er, ...

Haven't you just said that no astronomical observation is evidence for anything (other than the vanilla detection of photons/electromagnetic radiation)?

{insert image of star here} is taking an observation and incorporating the idea of {insert description here, involving self-gravitating mass of H, He, etc held from collapsing by nuclear fusion in the core, etc ...} into the observation as an explaination [sic].

Or did I miss some vital part of the JEROME DA GNOME alternative approach to how astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology is done?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Futher, there is nothing in that link that does anything more than state---LOOK! IT IS DARK MATTER!!!
Click to expand...
perhaps, but it describes the event that was observed. Again, if you have a counter hypothesis that doesn't require the invention of a hypothetical state of matter, provide it. Otherwise, it's the best option we have right now.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are still not understanding science. Not knowing the correct answer does not mean that the made-up gnome answer is correct. This is why BBT theology is not science. Science should be looking for explanations, not making up magical unmeasurable gnomes to support a faith.
Click to expand...
OK, so ...

... what, in JEROME DA GNOME version of the branches of science called 'astronomy', 'astrophysics', and 'cosmology' constitutes an 'explanation'?

What criteria should one use, per JEROME DA GNOME science, to determine if something is an 'explanation' (of some astronomical observation) or not?

Hopefully, these criteria will be objective and can be applied independently and consistently ...
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are still not understanding science. Not knowing the correct answer does not mean that the made-up gnome answer is correct. This is why BBT theology is not science. Science should be looking for explanations, not making up magical unmeasurable gnomes to support a faith.
Click to expand...

I think that you need to stop your anti BBT crusade for a second and look at what the science actually says.

All of the evidence that we can gather points to a big bang occurring. It does not describe what happened prior to this moment, nor does it describe how such a singularity was/is possible.

There has been many a hypothesis describing possible explanations, and you seem to latch onto these, such as the *t=0/big bang came from nothing* bit in the other thread, and use this as a straw man to attack all Big Bang Cosmology.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Um, er, ...

Haven't you just said that no astronomical observation is evidence for anything (other than the vanilla detection of photons/electromagnetic radiation)?
Click to expand...

No I never said that.

Is that how you hold onto your faith?

Lie about those that disagree.


Why is it that my simple thoughts can not be countered? Is that it because the majority here are just pretending to understand thier beliefs and truly have no understanding of what the preists have told them?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
This is just not true.
Click to expand...

The problem with you, Jerome, is that even if I present all of the evidence (as others have done in other threads), you will fall back on your argument that scientists are dogmatic followers of various mainstream theories.
 
Gate2501 said:
The problem with you, Jerome, is that even if I present all of the evidence (as others have done in other threads), you will fall back on your argument that scientists are dogmatic followers of various mainstream theories.
Click to expand...

The chorus of "Evidence has been presented!!!" does not make it true that evidence has been presented.

Sorry about that. I feel sad for those that regurgitate lies.


Please show where the evidence has been presented.
 
Do you also think stars are little holes in the roof, letting a bit of light through?
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
The chorus of "Evidence has been presented!!!" does not make it true that evidence has been presented.

Sorry about that. I feel sad for those that regurgitate lies.


Please show where the evidence has been presented.
Click to expand...

How about you go to www.wikipedia.com.

Type in "Big Bang Theory".

Read the cited sources in the areas that you believe to be incorrect/false.

If you hold the opinion to be true that there is some massive conspiracy or quasi-religious belief in the scientific community, the purpose of which is to hold back competing theories, you are going to deflect any possible evidence based on that belief. This kind of thinking is a free ticket to justify ANY sort of pseudo-scientific theory that you could concoct.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
The chorus of "Evidence has been presented!!!" does not make it true that evidence has been presented.

Sorry about that. I feel sad for those that regurgitate lies.


Please show where the evidence has been presented.
Click to expand...
yawn. Shall I present the evidence that you don't actually bother reading the sources of evidence?
 
joobz said:
yawn. Shall I present the evidence that you don't actually bother reading the sources of evidence?
Click to expand...

I read everything presented. That is how I know the flaws in the so-called evidences, which when I point them out are just hand-waved away and the chorus begins once again.


Please present evidence.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
No I never said that.

Is that how you hold onto your faith?

Lie about those that disagree.


Why is it that my simple thoughts can not be countered? Is that it because the majority here are just pretending to understand thier beliefs and truly have no understanding of what the preists have told them?
Click to expand...
Okey dokey, let's follow the breadcrumbs, shall we?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality Check: The direct observation of dark matter falsifies the last prediction and thus the model.

JEROME DA GNOME: That is not evidence of Dark Matter. That is taking an observation and incorporating the idea of Dark Matter into the observation as an explaination.

DeiRenDopa: Um, er, ...

Haven't you just said that no astronomical observation is evidence for anything (other than the vanilla detection of photons/electromagnetic radiation)?

{insert image of star here} is taking an observation and incorporating the idea of {insert description here, involving self-gravitating mass of H, He, etc held from collapsing by nuclear fusion in the core, etc ...} into the observation as an explaination [sic].

Or did I miss some vital part of the JEROME DA GNOME alternative approach to how astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology is done?

JEROME DA GNOME (selectively quoting DRD): No I never said that.

Is that how you hold onto your faith?

Lie about those that disagree.

Why is it that my simple thoughts can not be countered? Is that it because the majority here are just pretending to understand thier beliefs and truly have no understanding of what the preists have told them?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A poor, ignorant soul seeks enlightenment, oh wise one; may this seeker be blessed by a few more moments of your precious time? May I ask that you answer two other of my questions?

Here they are again (I've added numbers):

1) What, in your esteemed vision of the branches of science called 'astronomy', 'astrophysics', and 'cosmology' constitutes an 'explanation'?

2) What criteria should one use, per your exulted science, to determine if something is an 'explanation' (of some astronomical observation) or not?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
... snip ...

Please present evidence.
Click to expand...
Sure thing ...

But first, if you don't mind, what is it that you regard as 'evidence'?

How do you make a determination that something (an astronomical observation, say) is 'evidence' or not?

If you could spare me the effort, could you walk me through the process you use, in some detail; taking a specific, astronomical observation as a concrete example would help greatly too ...
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
No I never said that.

Is that how you hold onto your faith?

Lie about those that disagree.


Why is it that my simple thoughts can not be countered? Is that it because the majority here are just pretending to understand thier beliefs and truly have no understanding of what the preists have told them?
Click to expand...
But surely you see my confusion?

I tried to put what you wrote into a one-to-one correspondence with something I thought would be mutually agreed (that stars, well most stars, are gravitationally bound balls of gas (mostly H and He), and which do not suffer collapse because they are hot (and that the heat which creates the (gas) pressure comes from nuclear fusion in their cores)).

The 'observation' would be seeing a star in the night sky (Sirius, say, or Alpha Cen).

the 'idea of' would be 'ball of gas held up against gravitational collapse by pressure derived ultimately from fusion'.

'incorporating' would be something like what you find in the pages of standard astrophysics textbooks, computer codes of models of stars, and so on.

How - in some deep and fundamental way - does this differ from the observational evidence for CDM?
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
The chorus of "Evidence has been presented!!!" does not make it true that evidence has been presented.

Sorry about that. I feel sad for those that regurgitate lies.


Please show where the evidence has been presented.
Click to expand...


Just for conversations sake, and that is my goal. Let us start with black holes. How do you feel about them. As an implied part of general relativity and then as a candidate for a large massive object in a very small area (as hypothesized from say the orbits of stars at the center of our galaxy).

Jerome, it is fine to doubt dark matter and that is cool, yet there are some things that might need an explanation. Such as why star cluster orbit the galaxy faster than they should. Now currently MOND might explain that but it has some other problems and the PC/PU stuff just doesn't cut it for the outer stars clusters. So which one do you prefer, the dark matter or modified gravity? Or do you have an alternate like Perrat's model that you prefer?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
That is not evidence of Dark Matter. That is taking an observation and incorporating the idea of Dark Matter into the observation as an explaination.
Click to expand...

It is evidence of a type of matter that
  1. Does not interact strongly with normal matter since it has been separated from the normal matter during the collision.
  2. Does not emit radiation.
At no point are the properties of Dark Matter used in the observation. It is all standard astronomy.

So now we have 2 choices. We can say that this is Dark Matter or we can follow Jerome and say that is is not Dark Matter but another kind of matter.

Congratulations Jerome - you have discovered a new kind of matter :rolleyes: !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom